Acta geographica Slovenica, 54-2, 2014, 411420

TRADITIONAL HOUSE NAMES AS PART

OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

KLEMEN KLINAR

Klemen Klinar, Matja` Ger{i~

The P r Smlijo farm in Srednji Vrh above Gozd Martuljek.

e

Klemen Klinar, Matja` Ger{i~, Traditional house names as part of cultural heritage

Traditional house names as part of cultural heritage

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3986/AGS54409
UDC: 811.163.6'373.232.3(497.452)
COBISS: 1.02
ABSTRACT: Traditional house names are a part of intangible cultural heritage. In the past, they were an
important factor in identifying houses, people, and other structures, but modern social processes are decreasing their use. House names preserve the local dialect with its special features, and their motivational
interpretation reflects the historical, geographical, biological, and social conditions in the countryside. This
article comprehensively examines house names and presents the methods and results of collecting house
names as part of various projects in Upper Carniola.
KEY WORDS: traditional house names, geographical names, cultural heritage, Upper Carniola, onomastics
The article was submitted for publication on November 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES:
Klemen Klinar
Northwest Upper Carniola Development Agency
Spodnji Plav` 24e, SI 4270 Jesenice, Slovenia
Email: klemen.klinararagor.si
Matja` Ger{i~
Anton Melik Geographical Institute
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Gosposka ulica 13, SI 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Email: matjaz.gersicazrc-sazu.si

412

Acta geographica Slovenica, 54-2, 2014

1 Introduction
Preserved traditional house names help determine historical and family conditions, social stratification
and interpersonal contacts, and administrative and political structure. Immigration and emigration are
very important aspects of social culture and they have left a strong trace in the house names in the @iri
area (Zorko, cited in Stanonik 2005, frontispiece). A short and concise outline of house names provided by Terezija Zinka Zorko reveals that house names have great informative value, and that it is vital
to study them as well as collect and preserve this type of cultural heritage.
In onomastics, traditional house names are classified as epithets (Keber 2002, 61). These are names
pertaining to a house, farm, or farmstead, or other property. In the Slovenian countryside, the majority
of house names continue to be a living part of cultural heritage (Keber 2002, 61; Kotnik [ipec 2004, 7).
A house name is usually created when the property is taken over by an owner whose last name differs from
that of the former owner, but the house retains its old name (Zorko 2004; 114115). It was common practice for a house to be named by the neighbors and not the owners themselves (Kotnik 2011, 1314). House
names were created to fulfill the need to differentiate between people in greater detail because personal
names no longer sufficed due to social development and progress. The basis for the development of house
names is extremely diverse, often reflecting the age of the property. They were often created from the given
names of the owners or other household members, both male and female. Their present form contains
traces of the phonetic and accentual development of the name in a specific dialect. An important factor
in developing house names is professions (especially crafts) and other human activities. The oldest house
names developed from topographic conditions. These include choronyms, toponyms, names of landscapes,
and hydronyms; common nouns referring to hills are also common (e.g., hrib hill, breg slope, planina
mountain pasture). Many names reflect specific features of the terrain (desolation, fertility, dryness, moisture, lee sides of hills, hilliness, insolation and windiness) or are derived from other natural processes.
Ethnonyms (e.g., Lah Italian, Oger Hungarian, ^i~ Istro-Romanian) and names referring to residents
of various regions (e.g., Koro{ec Carinthian, Kranjec Carniolan, Dolenjec Lower Carniolan, Ziljan Gail
Valley resident) are also possible sources of house names. Extremely diverse house names also originate
from various nicknames (animal names, nicknames referring to the color of one's skin and hair and other
physical or psychological special features, nicknames referring to plants, foods and drinks, clothing and
shoes, money, measures, ages, times of birth, family relations, handicrafts, tools, and materials). House
names were also derived from the status of a property in the village or the function of the structure from
which the property developed. Church and administrative functions (e.g., sextons, mayors, and excise officers) were also important motivations for creating house names. The surnames of the original owners
are a frequent motivation for creating more recent house names ([tukl 1997, 415; [kofic 2001, 3034;
Kotnik [ipec 2004, 78; Zorko 2004, 127128; Hawlina 2008, 47; Klinar 2011, 3).
The first Slovenian discussions on traditional house names can be found in 1856 in the newspaper
Kmetijske in rokodelske novice (Agricultural and Handicraft News), in which Janez Bleiweis describes the different vocabulary used in various Slovenian regions. In this context, he reports that when asked What
do you call your house? people in Inner Carniola would say S zmerjanjem We use the name The same
reply was used in Styria and in some places in Lower Carniola, whereas in Upper Carniola they would
say Our place. Bleiweis suggested that the expression s zmerjanjem was derived from German Spitzname
or Spottname nickname. In addition, the German term Vulgarname commonly known as was used, which
Bleiweis Slovenized as prikladek. The fact is that there is no clear semantic boundary between the two expressions. In certain areas, such as around Kamnik, Vulgarname was equated with surname, and Spottname
with nickname (Sln. percovnik or pricovnik; Stanonik 2005, 18). Keber (2002, 61) also lists the following
Slovenian synonyms: zdevek nickname, pritikljej or zdeto/prilo`eno ime (literally, added name), gerdo ime
(literally, bad name), and pri{varek or pri{vrk (literally, slapped-on name). It is thus clear that this terminology was used differently in different Slovenian areas, which indicates a strong regional component.
The oldest basic sources for studying traditional house names include terriers (Tajn{ek 2007, 356).
Later on (in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries), priests began keeping registers. In the eighteenth
century, they also began keeping annual reports in Latin (Libri de statu animarum or simply status animarum) in what is now Slovenia; in the same period, land registers also appeared after the introduction
of the cadastre, in which a house name (labeled vulgo) was added to the full name of the property owner
(Kotnik [ipec 2004, 1921; Klinar 2011, 34). Among secondary sources, one should mention the house-name
records compiled by Bo`o Otorepec and kept by the ZRCSAZU Milko Kos Historical Institute (Keber 2002, 61).

413

Klemen Klinar, Matja` Ger{i~, Traditional house names as part of cultural heritage

1.1 Overview of research to date

Based on data from the Cooperative Online Bibliographic System (COBISS), the hits returned by the search
query hi{no ime house name demonstrate that many researchers have studied traditional house names
in the Slovenian ethnic territory (over 100 researchers have contributed approximately 190 bibliographic units). It must be emphasized that their collection and research was unsystematic, spatially dispersed,
and used varying research methodologies. Regarding the researchers' profiles, these types of issues were
at the center of interest of not only professionals from various scholarly disciplines, but also individual
amateur researchers.
The youngest collectors of traditional house names include primary-school students, who take part
in collecting and studying house names in various ways (research camps and term papers; Gliha Komac 1999;
Preserje Primary School 2000; Klinar 2011). House names are an attractive undergraduate thesis topic
(16 bibliographic units, among them Grivec 2010 and Gumilar 2012), and they are also studied at the highest academic levels. Basic house-name research has been carried out by Zinka Zorko (Hi{na imena na
Koro{kem 8Traditional House Names in Carinthia:, 2004), Marija Stanonik (Hi{na imena v @ireh 8Traditional
House Names in @iri:, 2005), the ethnochoreologist Mirko Ramov{ (Hi{na imena v vaseh Je`ica, Savlje,
Kle~e, Mala vas in Sto`ice 8Traditional House Names in the Villages of Je`ica, Savlje, Kle~e, Mala Vas, and
Sto`ice:, 1999), and more recently, primarily by the dialectologist Jo`ica [kofi~ (Hi{na imena v Kropi
8Traditional House Names in Kropa:, 2001; Zasnova slovarja gorenjskih hi{nih imen 8Draft Dictionary of
Upper Carniola Traditional House Names:, 2005; Hi{na imena kot gradivo za dialektolo{ko raziskovanje
8Traditional House Names as a Basis for Dialectology Research:, 2011) and the dialectologist and comparative
linguist Matej [ekli (Hi{na imena v Ov~ji vasi 8Traditional House Names in Valbruna:, 2005). By collecting and analyzing house names, dialectologists can study the linguistic features of individual dialects
([kofic 2005, 104).
The work of geographer Klemen Klinar from the Northwest Upper Carniola Development Agency
represents an important methodological contribution to research on traditional house names with a great
deal of new information. He has published his research findings in a series of publications (a total of twelve
booklets) titled Kako se pri vas re~e? (What's Your Traditional House Name? e.g., Klinar 2011).
Many amateur house-name collectors are not included in the COBISS database, and so their number must be significantly larger.
From the geographical viewpoint, individual studies usually extend beyond a certain settlement, local
community, parish, proto-parish, municipality, and even a wider geographical unit such as valley or plateau.
Research conducted in Slovenian territory at various levels has included fifty-three municipalities in all
Slovenian regions; the majority of the municipalities covered were in Upper Carniola and more than 120 settlements from all municipalities were included in the research. In ethnically Slovenian cross-border areas,
the greatest attention has been dedicated to traditional house names in the Jaun, Rosen, and Gail valleys
in Austrian Carinthia; for example, Bertrand Kotnik made a detailed list of house names in this part of
Slovenian ethnic territory in Austria in his fifteen-volume collection titled Zgodovina hi{ ju`ne Koro{ke
(The History of Houses in Southern Carinthia; 2011). Various writers have also studied house names in
the ethnic Slovenian areas in Italy (the Trieste region, Canale Valley, Venetian Slovenia), as well as in the ethnic Slovenian villages in Hungary (Szlovn hznevek 1999).

2 Work methods
2.1 Collecting house names
In the studies conducted by the Northwest Upper Carniola Development Agency, traditional house names
are defined as geographical names for an occupied or non-occupied house with a house number within
a settlement, excluding individual outbuildings. This research also included names of separate and auxiliary outbuildings that are not part of the property where people dwelled (e.g., sawmills and flourmills),
and community buildings (e.g., rectories and schools; Klinar et al. 2012, 13).
Due to a more detailed definition of traditional house names, only names are being collected that have
been in use since 1940 and are thus at least seventy years old. After the Second World War, abandonment

414

KLEMEN KLINAR

Acta geographica Slovenica, 54-2, 2014

Figure 1: The P r Zdv nk farm in Kokra.

e

of farming and urbanization spread widely in the countryside (Klinar et al. 2012, 16); because of this, house
names are no longer being created in the former, traditional way.
Historical sources with recorded traditional house names are very useful for identifying the age of house
names. Extremely helpful are the protocols of the cadastral survey under Emperor Francis I (18231869)
and the revised cadastral survey for Carniola (Reambulan~ni kataster za Kranjsko, 18671882), and parish
records (the status animarum), in which house names were systematically entered as a separate category.
The year of the source is a reliable piece of information, proving that a house name already existed at that
time (Klinar et al. 2012, 16).
An overview of written sources is a good basis for fieldwork, in which the selection of good informants is vital. Usually these are locals that have lived in a place their entire lives, speak the authentic local
dialect, and know the local home environment and people well (Klinar et al. 2012, 19). Traditional house
names are written down and audio recorded during the interviews with the informants. All of the information obtained from them is also presented, verified, and built upon at meetings with the locals, where
everyone present is informed about the importance and values of house names and the use of dialect language in general.

2.2 Transcribing house names

As part of collecting traditional house names, for best results names are documented in the various forms
they appear in:
Basic form (e.g., Pr Tam`ovco, Na Pstt, Fro`);
Name of the owner derived from the house name (e.g., Tam`ovc, Psttnek, Ta fro{k);
Name of the owner's wife derived from the house name (e.g., Tam`ovka, Psttnca, Ta fro{ka):
Possessive adjective derived from the house name (e.g., Tam`ov~ov, Psttnekov, Fro{k).

415

Klemen Klinar, Matja` Ger{i~, Traditional house names as part of cultural heritage

As can be seen from the examples listed above, a simplified dialect transcription is used in transcribing
traditional house names and related expressions; this dialect transcription can be used to preserve the intangible linguistic cultural heritage in its original dialectal form with great quality, while ensuring that
the transcriptions can also be read relatively accurately by locals. In this type of transcription, the stress
placement and the vowel length and quality are also marked (e.g., Pr Jegl~ and not Pr Jgli~); in addition, the vowels reduced to zero are omitted (e.g., Matjovc and not Matjovec), and the reduced vowels
and the semivowel are preserved (e.g., Pr Mk~ and not Pr Mek~) in addition to other dialect consonant developments (e.g., Pr Tfkarjo and not Pr Tpkarjo) and other special features, including the substitution
of /v/ for /l/ (e.g., Pr Gv`arj and not Pr Gl`arj).
The simplified dialect form has turned out to meet the basic dialectological demands on the one hand
and, on the other, it simplifies the scholarly phonetic form to the extent that a specific transcribed name
can also be read in its authentic dialect form by locals and visitors. It is also very useful in documenting
the dialect differences that appear within the Upper Carniolan dialect group, and the differences with other
dialects that are commonly used in Upper Carniola. In the case of uniform standardization, dialect pronunciation as one of the most important heritage components of traditional house names would be lost.
This is clearly demonstrated by the examples of identical family names in various dialect forms (Table 1).
Table 1: Examples of identical house names in various dialect forms.
Standardized form

Dialect form 1

Dialect form 2

Dialect form 3

Pri Lizniku
Pri Kova~u
Pri Lazarju

Pr Lzneko (Zgo{a)
Pr Kov~ (Zabreznica)
Pr Vzarjo (Stara Fu`ina)

Pr Lznek (Bohinjska Bela)

Pr Kov~o (Zgornje Gorje)
Pr Lzarjo (Bohinjska Bistrica)

Pr Lznjko (Kranjska Gora)

Pr Kav~ (Rate~e)
Pr Vzarj (Dobravica pri Podnartu)

3 Results
3.1 Scope of research
Until November 2012, activities for collecting traditional house names in Upper Carniola under the aegis
of the Northwest Upper Carniola Development Agency, as the professional project provider, took place
as part of three separate projects, of which two have already been finished and one is still ongoing. The first
two projects covered sixty-three settlements, and in the current one an additional ninety-three settlements
are being processed for house names. The settlements included in individual projects are listed in Table 2.
As part of the two completed projects, 2,131 traditional house names were collected; this number is
expected to increase by approximately 1,500 additional names by the time the third project is concluded. Among the names already collected, seventy-four are not connected with any real structure because
the property no longer exists.
There is a great diversity of traditional house names because only sixteen appear seven times or more.
The names Pri Kova~u the blacksmith's place (27 instances), Pri Me`narju the sexton's place (18 instances),
Pri @nidarju the tailor's place (14 instances), Pri [panu the mayor's place (12 instances), Pri Mlinarju
the miller's place (10 instances), Pri Toncu Tony's place (9 instances), and Pri Hribarju the hillsman's
place (8 instances) predominated. The following names appeared seven times: Pri Bohincu
the Bohinj-dweller's place, Pri Grabnarju the creek-dweller's place, Pri Kaj`arju and Pri Kaj`u the tenant-farmer's place, Pri Klemencu Clement's place, Pri Petru Peter's place, Pri Pintarju the cooper's place,
Pri Rib~u the fisherman's place, and Pri [o{tarju the cobbler's place. These names confirm that house
names were largely derived from the names of occupations or trades (e.g., blacksmith, tailor, and cooper), first names (e.g., Tony, Clement), the location of the property (e.g., on a hill: hillsman, by a creek:
creek-dweller), and the status of the property (small farm: tenant-farmer).

3.2 Marking house names

So far, collecting traditional house names has yielded twelve publications, with all names provided in dialect
and standardized form, and the forms of transcriptions used in historical sources (cf. Klinar 2011). These

416

Acta geographica Slovenica, 54-2, 2014

Table 2: Overview of settlements included in individual house-name collection projects in Upper Carniolan municipalities.
Municipalities What's your house called?
(project concluded in June 2010)
Bled
Bode{~e, Bohinjska Bela, Koritno,
Kupljenik, Obrne, Ribno, Selo
pri Bledu, Slamniki
Bohinj

Cerklje

na Gorenjskem

Gorje
Jesenice

Mevku`, Podhom, Polj{ica

pri Gorjah, Vi{elnica

Jezersko
Kranj

Kranjska Gora
Naklo

Gozd - Martuljek, Srednji Vrh

Preddvor

Radovljica

Begunje na Gorenjskem, Brda,

Dvorska vas, Lancovo, Mlaka,
Ravnica, Slatna, Spodnja Lipnica,
Srednja vas, Vo{~e, Zadnja vas,
Zapu`e, Zgornja Lipnica, Zgo{a

[en~ur

@irovnica

Breg, Moste, Selo pri @irovnici,

Zabreznica, @irovnica

Let's get to know old house names

(project concluded in December 2011)
Re~ica pri Bledu, Zasip

Nomen vulgare (the project is planned

to conclude by December 2013)
Bled

Bohinjska ^e{njica, Jereka, Podjelje,

Srednja vas, Stara Fu`ina, Studor

Bohinjska Bistrica, Brod, Kamnje, La{ki

Rovt, Polje, Ravne, Rib~ev Laz, Savica
Adergas, Ambro` pod Krvavcem, Apno,
^e{njevek, Dvorje, Grad, Praprotna
Polica, P{ata, Ravne, Sidra`, Sti{ka vas,
Sveti Lenart, [entur{ka Gora, [tefanja
Gora, Trata pri Velesovem, Velesovo
Spodnje Gorje, Zgornje Gorje

Grab~e, Krnica, Perniki, Radovna,

Spodnje Laze, Zgornje Laze

Blejska Dobrava, Hru{ica, Javorni{ki

Rovt, Koro{ka Bela, Planina pod Golico,
Plav{ki Rovt, Potoki, Prihodi, Slovenski
Javornik,

Spodnje Jezersko, Zgornje Jezersko

Babni Vrt, ^adovlje, Pangr{ica, Povlje,

Trstenik, @ablje, Breg ob Savi, Jama,
Mav~i~e, Meja, Podre~a, Pra{e
Podkoren, Rate~e
Kranjska Gora, Log

Bistrica, Gobovce, Podbrezje, Spodnje

Duplje, Strahinj, Zadraga, Zgornje
Duplje, @eje
Ba{elj, Breg ob Kokri, Kokra, Ma~e,
Hra{e, Hrib, Preddvor, Spodnja Bela,
Mo`janca, Nova vas, Poto~e, Tupali~e Srednja Bela, Zgornja Bela

Brezje, ^e{njica pri Kropi, ^rnivec,

Dobravica, Dobro Polje, Lipnica,
Mi{a~e, No{e, Ovsi{e, Pera~ica,
Podnart, Polj{ica pri Podnartu,
Prezrenje, Rovte, Spodnja Dobrava,
Srednja Dobrava, Zalo{e, Zgornja
Dobrava

Hotema`e, Lu`e, Milje, Ol{evek,

Srednja vas pri [en~urju, Visoko
Breznica, Doslov~e, Rodine, Smoku~,
Vrba

small volumes also contain stories connected with house names and old photographs of properties and
the villages studied.
What the property owners and other villagers found most interesting were the signs with traditional house names that were put up on all the houses whose owners gave their written consent. In both
completed projects, 1,314 properties were recorded in 2010 and 2011, which accounts for 64% of all the properties identified. This percentage indicates the positive attitude of owners towards cultural heritage. The signs
on the properties are ceramic and the house names are written in the simplified dialect form, which was
positively accepted by the locals because in this way their house names are presented in authentic dialect
form.
After the collection of traditional house names was completed, these names were also included in municipal spatial information systems, such as iOb~ina (Internet 1) and PISO (Internet 2), and the uniform online
geographical information system iSlovenija (Internet 3), where they are displayed as a separate data layer.
In addition, all the house names collected are included in the online Encyclopedia of Surnames of the Slovenian

417

KLEMEN KLINAR

Klemen Klinar, Matja` Ger{i~, Traditional house names as part of cultural heritage

Figure 2: The P r Mkav~o farm in Podkoren.

KLEMEN KLINAR

Figure 3: An example of a sign with a house name on it.

418

Acta geographica Slovenica, 54-2, 2014

Genealogical Society, where all the surnames and house names from the wider ethnic Slovenian area are
gathered in one place (Internet 4).
In addition to the tangible results described above, attention should also be directed to the intangible results of these research projects, which are reflected in local people's increased awareness of
the heritage value of traditional house names and thus their everyday usage, and ultimately the need for
their transfer to younger generations.

4 Conclusion
Traditional house names are an important type of intangible cultural heritage in the Slovenian countryside. The locals constantly recreate intangible cultural heritage, which is transferred from one generation
to the other, as a response to their environment, nature, and history. Intangible cultural heritage provides
them with a feeling of identity and continued contact with former generations, which promotes respect
for cultural diversity and human creativity (Internet 5). Modern social processes in the countryside such
as suburbanization and abandonment of farming are causing house names to be forgotten and disappear,
even though it is these very names that are the elements of the property that do not change and can be
preserved for many centuries. Their origins are very diverse and refer to the geographical, social, economic,
and other circumstances at the time they were created and, to some extent, they also contain a more direct
human aspect.
Suitably recognized and managed cultural values can significantly influence the sustainable development
of rural areas, in which not only economic aspects are important, but also ecological, social, and cultural aspects
([mid Hribar, Ledinek Lozej 2013).
Traditional house names are vital for the preservation of dialects and subdialects. Despite the loss of
certain dialect features, these are nonetheless preserved in house names, even though younger people no
longer use the special features of most dialects in Upper Carniola. House names can also be defined as
having cultural heritage value due to their diversity because, with the exception of few rare examples, the great
majority of names in the sample areas studied occur less than five times.
Due to the special features of elements of intangible cultural heritage, it is an especially demanding
task to identify its worth, values, and threat level (Strategija za varstvo 2007, 78). All of this points to
the necessity of systematic collection and preservation of old house names. The projects by the Northwest
Upper Carniola Development Agency have been among the boldest activities in collecting house names
to date, supported by uniform methodology and focused on the central and northwestern parts of Upper
Carniola.
Collecting traditional house names in Upper Carniola is also supported by other campaigns for collecting choronyms, among which one should highlight the cross-border project FLU-LED Kulturni portal
ledinskih in hi{nih imen (The Cultural Portal of Choronyms and Traditional House Names), which is being
carried out as part of the EU SloveniaAustria Operational Program, 20072013 (Klinar et al. 2012).
In 2010, Slovenian traditional house names and choronyms were accepted onto the UNESCO List of
Intangible Cultural Heritage in Austria as the heritage of an officially recognized ethnic minority in Austria
(Piko - Rustia 2010, 15). This testifies to the great awareness of and respect for this type of Slovenian folk
material in Austria, and it encourages us to recognize the importance and place of house names and
choronyms in the Register of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Slovenia.
The inclusion of intangible cultural heritage on the UNESCO list opens opportunities for raising
the international profile of Slovenian customs, language, traditional trades, and more (Strategija za varstvo 2007, 8).

5 References
Gliha Komac, N. 1999: Drugi otro{ki etimolo{ki raziskovalni tabor Stara hi{na imena v Kanalski dolini:
@abnice. Hi{na imena v @abnicah otro{ki raziskovalni tabor Kanalska dolina 1999. Ukve.
Grivec, B. 2010: Ledinska in hi{na imena v izbranih naseljih ob~ine Ormo`. Diplomsko delo, Filozofska
fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru. Maribor.

419

Klemen Klinar, Matja` Ger{i~, Traditional house names as part of cultural heritage

Gumilar, N. 2012: Ledinska in hi{na imena v izbranih naseljih ob~ine Grad. Diplomsko delo, Filozofska
fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru.
Hawlina, P. 2008: Hi{na imena. Drevesa bilten slovenskih rodoslovcev. [kofja Loka.
Internet 1: http://gis.iobcina.si/gisapp/Default.aspx?a=Gorje (7. 11. 2012).
Internet 2: http://www.geoprostor.net/piso/ewmap.asp?obcina=ZIROVNICA (7. 11. 2012).
Internet 3: http://www.islovenija.si (7. 11. 2012).
Internet 4: http://www.rodoslovje.com (7. 11. 2012).
Internet 5: http://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?urlmpid=20082 (9. 11. 2012).
Keber, J. 2002: Rojstna imena, hi{na imena, vzdevki, psevdonimi v Sloveniji. Jezikoslovni zapiski 8. Ljubljana.
Klinar, K. 2011: Kako se pri vas re~e? Hi{na imena v naseljih Grab~e, Krnica, Perniki, Radovna, Spodnje
Laze in Zgornje Laze. Zgornje Gorje.
Klinar, K., [kofic, J., [ekli, M., Piko - Rustia, M. 2012: Metode zbiranja hi{nih in ledinskih imen: Projekt
FLU-LED v okviru Operativnega programa SlovenijaAvstrija 20072013. Jesenice, Celovec.
Kotnik [ipec, M. 2004: Stara hi{na imena na Polzeli. Polzela.
Kotnik, B. 2011: Zgodovina hi{ ju`ne Koro{ke. Celovec.
Osnova {ola Preserje 2000: Hi{na imena v krajevni skupnosti Podpe~-Preserje in krajevni skupnosti Rakitna.
Preserje.
Piko - Rustia, M. 2010: Slovenska ledinska in hi{na imena po Unesco. Novice tednik za Koro{ko. Celovec.
Ramov{, M. 1999: Hi{na imena v vaseh Je`ica, Savlje, Kle~e, Mala vas in Sto`ice. Ljubljana.
Stanonik, M. 2005: Hi{na imena v @ireh. Maribor.
Strategija za varstvo kulturne dedi{~ine in naravnih vrednost v Republiki Sloveniji v skladu z mednarodnimi pravnimi instrumenti in aktivnostmi. Gradivo vlade Republike Slovenije. Ljubljana, 2007.
Szlovn hznevek. A Magyarorszgi szlovnek nprajza. Budapest, 1999.
[ekli, M. 2005: Hi{na imena v Ov~ji vasi. Ov~ja vas in njena slovenska govorica: raziskovalni tabor. Ukve.
[kofic, J. 2001: Hi{na imena v Kropi. Simpozij Slovenska lastnoimenskost: zbornik s simpozija '99 v Pi{ecah
(ur. J. Topori{i~). Novo mesto.
[kofic, J. 2005: Hi{na imena kot gradivo za dialektolo{ko raziskovanje. Rije~ ~asopis za filologiju. Rijeka.
[kofic, J. 2011: Zasnova slovarja gorenjskih hi{nih imen. Mednarodni znanstveni sestanek Slovenski dialekti
v stiku 5. Koper.
[mid Hribar, M., Ledinek Lozej, [. 2013: Vloga prepoznavanja in upravljanja kulturnih vrednot pri razvoju
pode`elja. Acta geographica Slovenica 53-2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/AGS53402
[tukl, F. 1997: Prispevki k poznavanju doma~ih imen v zvezi z upravnimi funkcijami. Drevesa bilten
slovenskih rodoslovcev. [kofja Loka.
Tajn{ek, R. 2007: Ledinska in hi{na imena v okolici Gornjega Grada po urbarju iz leta 1426. Kronika
~asopis za slovensko krajevno zgodovino. Ljubljana.
Zorko, Z. 2004: Hi{na imena na Koro{kem (ob Miklo{i~evem imenoslovju). Zora 31. Ljubljana.

420